413
submitted 10 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

Marlene Engelhorn says that when she inherited her grandmother's multimillion-dollar fortune in 2022, she "wanted to be happy about it."

"And I couldn't be," the Austrian heiress told As It Happens host Nil Köksal. "I was angry instead … because I knew it was really unfair, and there was no reason for me to get this that I could really justify."

Engelhorn has long campaigned for greater taxes on the wealthy in Austria, including an inheritance tax. But since the government won't redistribute her wealth for her, she says she's asking the people do it.

Engelhorn is giving €25 million ($36.5 million Cdn) — which she says is the vast majority of her inheritance — to a committee of Austrian residents tasked with using it to fight wealth inequality.

"I am only wealthy because I was born in a rich family. And I think in a democratic society of the 21st century, birth should not be the one thing that determines whether or not you're gonna get to lead a very good life," Engelhorn said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] loopedcandle@lemmynsfw.com 31 points 10 months ago

There is a solid counter argument here (to play devil's advocate). This is what a right wing American would say to this:

See, we don't have to tax the rich, they're so generous. It's more efficient to let them have their money and donate it directly to causes. The federal government is so bad at allocating wealth, reducing taxes so more people can be like her is the way to go.

If the person above is not wealthy themselves, the following thought to this is Well, when I'm inevitably wealthy because of how great I am, I don't want the government taxing me so I can be like her.

Then they pat themselves on the back for being so ((in an impossible future)) generous.

It's worth thinking about how to counter this argument.

[-] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

People have conscious and unconscious biases.

They are prejudiced and can’t allocate money objectively. This woman is directing the use of this money even though that may not be the best use of the money.

When you look at this on a macro scale, what is the system we have for allocating resources across an entire country? Government.

Is it perfect? No, but it doesn’t change the fact the most efficient and objective means we have is government.

In short, I don’t want a system where a huge racist can accumulate vast wealth and society has the prevailing view that this racist will be altruistic through some mystical force.

[-] azan@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

It's important to think about the counterargument, I agree.

To counter your counterargument: it's not a good argument on many levels (scope, allocation, distribution mechanism, effect). The main reason is that this sort of charity doesn't improve the core problem of low(er) social mobility. The opportunity to pursue self-development/self-fulfillment should not be tied to the whimsical act of a better-off person but presented to everyone as equal as possible - through common goods and services. The impossible future is impossible due to vastly different prerequisites. The person's "greatness" will never be seen, as most likely they will never be presented with the opportunity to display it.

this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
413 points (98.6% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2315 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS